Good news -- the insurgency is over! Now we need a new strategy for the Iraq War.

[Fabius Maximus]

Do you write your positions off of mainstream media accounts or have you been in Iraq since 2003 at all?

I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?

Additionally, your writings have always smacked of one who has bought into the mainstream media perspective.

The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.

You highlight problems and seldom solutions.

A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.

Lastly, you have long used your postings on this web site to attempt to gain readers to DNI.

Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.

You've scantly addressed direct criticism, or even direct questioning.

This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?

I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.

It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.

... your inability to understand their practical application in counterinsurgency operations

Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.

...which, in all actuality, you're using the term in way too general an application

Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.

[Fabius Maximus]

I actually have the article in my file and overlooked it's significance!

[RTK]

Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.

I'm talking about on the whole, not specifically isolated to this thread. The truth is, I've been waiting for 3 months for your response in the Kilcullen thread.

On 28 DEC you said that "I've given a close analysis of his text. Please give specifics as to my errors."

The point is that I did. I broke down each of the 28 Articles and showed real world application. You fell off the face of the earth after that. I gave specifics on each article. You never addressed them. No, there weren't question marks in the text, but there was plenty for you to refute.

[slapout9]

Bubba's SWC "Wrasslin Smackdown" results.
Winner and still champion RTK Final score 10+.
Loser FM, score 0. Penalty point added final score -1, reason lack of MO JO to support your arguments.

[SWCAdmin]

I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.

Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.
<snip>

I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.

It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.

OK, time out.

I don't like the whole permission / implied endorsement thing that is going on here. There was and is no "advance permission to post," either required or granted. There was, and is here again, affirmation that this is a relevant topic and a welcome Council member. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our approach to the Small Wars Council is not to be gatekeepers on the front end, but to run an open community where relevance and worth, or at least interest and intent, is the key to access. We have been largely self-regulating and only occasionally apply revenge (i.e. after the fact) moderation.

Is this thread about a Small Wars topic? Yes. (except for some sidebar "process" rants like this)

Do we care that it refers to a source external to our board? Not really. We do that all the time. And while FM is certainly cross-promoting himself, we do that too, and there's nothing excessive, spammy, or abashedly commercial about this instance of it.

Does "presence" here, in and of itself, say anything more? No. Everyone's posts stand on their own merit.

Let the Games continue. Time back in.

While the Operator of this forum may from time to time monitor or review discussions, postings, transmissions, bulletin boards and other user and member generated pages on the Site, neither the Operator nor its affiliates is under any obligation to do so. You acknowledge that the Operator and its affiliates do not control the information available on the bulletin boards and other user and member generated pages and that any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers or other information or content presented or disseminated on any bulletin board or on any other user or member generated pages are those of their respective authors who are solely liable for their content.

[RTK]

OK, time out.

I don't like the whole permission / implied endorsement thing that is going on here. There was and is no "advance permission to post," either required or granted. There was, and is here again, affirmation that this is a relevant topic and a welcome Council member. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our approach to the Small Wars Council is not to be gatekeepers on the front end, but to run an open community where relevance and worth, or at least interest and intent, is the key to access. We have been largely self-regulating and only occasionally apply revenge (i.e. after the fact) moderation.

Is this thread about a Small Wars topic? Yes. (except for some sidebar "process" rants like this)

Do we care that it refers to a source external to our board? Not really. We do that all the time. And while FM is certainly cross-promoting himself, we do that too, and there's nothing excessive, spammy, or abashedly commercial about this instance of it.

Does "presence" here, in and of itself, say anything more? No. Everyone's posts stand on their own merit.

Let the Games continue. Time back in.

It's not that I'm questioning the posts' appropriatness. It's just that I expect open dialogue that addresses the issues. I don't feel that the Kilcullen thread ever really ended, as FM certainly did not redress the summary. My point is this: If you aren't going to address the issues brought out (whether there are question marks or not) then why engage in the first place. That's all I'm saying. FM is well within his rights to post on SWJ. Perhaps my earlier post was a bit less well constructed and too emotive.

[Stan]

Slapout !
Glad you finally did it...I wanted to all morning

God, I hope I never get on RTK's bad side

[SWCAdmin]

Perhaps my earlier post was a bit less well constructed and too emotive.

Perhaps not. In the net.

I saw some "open dialogue that addresses the issues."

We need plenty of that.

[Culpeper]

I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?


The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.


A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.


Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.


This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?


It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.


Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.


Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.

This is what I'm talking about. I find it very irritating for someone to selectively quote and respond, which place the entire thing out of context by construct. The Emperor should be able to respond to a post and cite his arguments appropriately. This isn't the Mariah Carey Fan Club where the lambs fight back and forth and take each other's comments out of context just because they don't know how to write a proper rebuttal.

[Fabius Maximus]

FM is well within his rights to post on SWJ. Perhaps my earlier post was a bit less well constructed and too emotive.

I agree with what you expressed both here and in the Kilcullen discussion. Posting from another site is, I believe, not discussed in the rules and therefore seems problematic. I did not ask then, but did so before starting this thread. I'm not sure where the "implied endorsement" view came from, as I doubt either of us thought that.

Web communities tend to spend much time on internal mechanics. I've read that some astonishingly high fraction of Wikipedia discussions are about its internal mechanics. It's a price paid for members taking the community seriously.

Since this has come up twice to my knowledge, adding a sentence about cross-posting might be useful. Just an outsider’s suggestion. (I hope it's not in there and I overlooked it in December)

As for previous discussions, the “Kilcullen” debate went on long past the point where I ceased to get anything from it. Not to mention the endless ad hominem attacks. Who was right or wrong I leave for the God or the SWC moderators to determine. I made what I considered a good faith contribution to a thread I started, not a life-long commitment. Like yourselves, I leave when the cost-benefit ratio becomes unfavorable.

So we’re back to this thread. If anyone has questions or criticisms on the article posted, I will make a good faith attempt to answer them. Like any opinion piece (another good call, RTK) it has errors, some of which people have told me about. If we're done, that's OK too.

[Jedburgh]

I'm not going to question anything you write anymore....

Been there. Done that. It seems to work.

On rare occasions there is someone posting on the board who (because of tone, content or both) that I want to look up just so I can punch him in the face. At that time, for me at least, it is useful to recognize that not posting is probably the better response. The board does have a feature that can help with targeted aggression:

What are the buddy and ignore lists?

The buddy list is used to keep track of the friends you have made on this forum. By going to your "Open Buddy List" in "Quick Links" menu of the navbar, you'll be able to see which of your friends are currently online and send them a private message. Adding people to your buddy list also allows you to send private messages to multiple forum members at the same time. You may add any member of the forums to your buddy list by viewing their profile or by going to "Buddy / Ignore Lists" in your "User CP".

Ignore lists are used for those people whose messages you wish not to read. By adding someone to your ignore list, those messages posted by these individuals will be hidden when you read a thread.

[Fabius Maximus]

Occasionally there is someone posting on the board that I want to look up just so I can punch him in the face. At that time, for me at least, it is useful to recognize that not posting is probably the better response. The board does have a feature that can help with targeted aggression:

I will answer the questions already in progress, such as from Culpeper and RTK, but I think with Jedburgh's comment this thread has gone past any reasonable debate.

Just a parting thought, if this is how you respond to my fairly mild comments -- after all, calls for to build a federated state in Iraq &/or exit fast are common now -- the range of debate here will likely remain fairly narrow. It is your site, and your decision how to run it.

[Jedburgh]

I will answer the questions already in progress, such as from Culpeper and RTK, but I think with Jedburgh's comment this thread has gone past any reasonable debate.

Just a parting thought, if this is how you respond to my fairly mild comments -- after all, calls for to build a federated state in Iraq &/or exit fast are common now -- the range of debate here will likely remain fairly narrow. It is your site, and your decision how to run it.

FM - don't take my comment personally. My point is, that if people are getting personally annoyed with you or with this discussion thread, then they need to either ignore your posts, or take it to PM or elsewhere.

Discussion is good - bickering is bad.

When posts are beginning to move in the direction of the latter, it significantly detracts from the usefulness of the thread. You know the old saw about "arguing on the internet...."

[Fabius Maximus]

I am trying to answer your questions, often at some length. And am attempting to learn from my past mistakes on this site. Please try to meet me half-way. We might even learn something from each other. Who knows?

We disagree, that's fine. I think in terms of current American opinion, we're pretty close. Hence I find the attitude here surprising. Nor, in my opinion, does this encourage visitors to participate unless they share your views.

This is your part of the global sandbox, and you can play by any rules you choose. It seems a bit of waste to me, as there is a lot of knowledge here that could reach a wider audience with a friendlier attitude to strangers.

[SWCAdmin]

What I’m thankful for….

Thanks to Jedburgh for pointing out the “don’t post when you can’t see straight” sage advice. And for clarifying that the initial vivid image there was illustrative of passions in general that might call for implementation of that strategy, rather than a specific allusion to our current thread.

Thanks to Fabius Maximus for being more responsive to direct questions, and for spicing up a lazy Saturday with some well crafted prose that pushes buttons. He has conceded some points in a gentlemanly fashion, and has not ever hidden his pretense that he is accessing our collective talents to help vet his works and fuel future ones. For those that don’t like that, see Jedburgh’s advice. For those who want to engage, he certainly seems willing and able!

Thanks to our members for getting over the pseudonym issue that plagued us at about this point in the last go-‘round. I’m glad we’re moving past that. SWC has made a conscious decision to allow for that in order to accommodate a more open discussion. We will not tolerate its use as an anonymizer from which to hurl insults, but that is not the case here. We respect the privacy of our members, and afford those who choose to use it the veil of pseudonymity in order to enable a frank discussion without repercussions to another life.

Thanks to the lads in Ireland for this nice Guinness in my hand on St. Patrick’s Day.


What I’d like to be thankful for in the near future…..

Continued passion from our members on these important issues when we feel they are being incorrectly bumper-stickered. Sometimes in the MSM, and God forbid maybe even here in these hallowed e-halls of the SWC. Channeled appropriately, of course.

An end to this whining about our rules, attitude, and range of debate here (e.g. posts 37,39). I have sensed a MASSIVE willingness in our members to listen to and learn from alternative views, just not to accept them as gospel without some critical analysis. It is not hostile or closed minded to ask for more than semantic support of a debatable statement, particularly when one’s firsthand observations do not fit with the conclusion. FM, in my opinion, that’s the bulk of what you’re getting here (and that’s what you want). And that is a very different thing than closing ranks on an outsider or a contrary viewpoint.

Another go-‘round on the next installment. FM indicated he would be developing some of these issues a little more in a planned series. Should make for a real party.

Another Guinness. OK, I think I will!

[RTK]

I will answer the questions already in progress, such as from Culpeper and RTK, but I think with Jedburgh's comment this thread has gone past any reasonable debate.

Just a parting thought, if this is how you respond to my fairly mild comments -- after all, calls for to build a federated state in Iraq &/or exit fast are common now -- the range of debate here will likely remain fairly narrow. It is your site, and your decision how to run it.

Question: The title of the piece is "Good news - the insurgency is over!" but your article doesn't really talk about it. It doesn't really make much sense to me as it disavows all definitions of insurgency to say that it doesn't exist. Kinda like the Peshmerga thing. It seems that there are terms being thrown out haphazardly that have very finite meanings that you're using to overstate the case. Can you please explain in more detail exactly what is meant by this title and precisely what you mean by it?

Looks like I gotta restock the bourbon cabinet. Thanks for the entertaining St. Patricks Day.

[Fabius Maximus]

Your question goes to the heart of the issue.

Wikipedia:

An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising or revolt against an established civil or political authority.

My dictionary:

insurgency: an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.

This op-ed gives is a syllogism. Perhaps two (loosely defined).

1. There is fighting.
2. There is no established national government.
3. Therefore the fighting is not an insurgency against the national gov't.

Here is the second one.

1. There are legitimate local governments in some parts of Iraq.
2. A national government must either have legitimacy or be composed of parts that have legitimacy.
3. Therefore the Iraq’s local governments are the basis we should work with to build a federated Iraq state.
4. Let’s stop attacking the militia and attempt to cut some deals.

Nothing original in these. These things have been said with increasing frequency during the past year. Perhaps this just frames the arguments a bit differently.

[RTK]

Your question goes to the heart of the issue.

Wikipedia:


My dictionary:


This op-ed gives is a syllogism. Perhaps two (loosely defined).

1. There is fighting.
2. There is no established government.
3. Therefore the fighting is not an insurgency.

Here is the second one.

1. There are legitimate local governments in some parts of Iraq.
2. A national government must either have legitimacy or be composed of parts that have legitimacy.
3. Therefore the Iraq’s local governments are the basis we should work with to build a federated Iraq state.
4. Let’s stop attacking the militia and attempt to cut some deals.

Nothing original in these. These things have been said with increasing frequency during the past year. Perhaps this just frames the arguments a bit differently.

I guess if you don't believe there's a government in Iraq, then there's nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise.

I do staunchly disagree with you, and by stating that there is no government essentially says that 8.4 million voters (58%) in December 2005 don't count. That's more of a turnout than we have in the United States, but I guess they just don't count.

[Fabius Maximus]

a proponent of 4GW, which relies on extremely loose interpretations of history.

I'll have to think about this. There must be a rebuttal, but I cannot imagine what it might be. Where is Lind when I need him?

I agree with you -- and like your phrasing -- about the evil spawn of 5GW and so forth. They seem like a good idea taken to the point of absurdity.

I'm betting "insurgency".

I'll bet on the other said of the question. Perhaps we lack the fine distinctions needed. What are other forms of civil war, other than insurgency?

[Fabius Maximus]

Think of these terms – banditry, insurgency, civil war – as a diagnosis. The first diagnosis was fighting with a low level of political activity – by “dead enders.” As the disease progressed the threat assessment also escalated, and there was an “insurgency.” Now it has progressed to the point that the central government – for which we had such hope – appears non-viable. There is probably a specific word for the current condition, this specific type of civil war. (I wish I had thought of this when writing the text).

Continuing the medical metaphor, each diagnosis leads to a remedy. Now we are treating Iraq with counter-insurgency operations. If the disease has progressed, that might no longer be appropriate. A different form of treatment might be required.

As with 5GW, we cannot take this metaphor too far or it gets silly. (Do we ally with the cancers in each organ?) It's an illustration.